Every miner is a Bitcoin employee that claims their contributed value through their share of the Bitcoin currency. They can either spend it or keep it as a company asset and save the coins for a long period of time. The people who have made hundreds of thousands to millions were just original investors. Are major company founders to be disregarded as lucky and lazy because of the time they put into their company originally?

Anyways, I thought I would put things into perspective. We are really members of a Bitcoin company. Either as board members, architects or suppliers.

There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. Header-only clients like MultiBit trust that the majority of mining power is honest for the purposes of enforcing network rules such as the 21 million BTC limit. Full clients do not trust miners in this way.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Every miner is a Bitcoin employee that claims their contributed value through their share of the Bitcoin currency.

Fortunately not true. Everybody has about the same vote independent* of BTC assets.

*) At least in principle. I practice, people with more money could get more computing power. But that doesn't require to be consisting of BTC. So Bill Gates could make a higher vote then all of us, even if he doesn't have a single bitcoin.

Every miner is a Bitcoin employee that claims their contributed value through their share of the Bitcoin currency.

Fortunately not true. Everybody has about the same vote independent* of BTC assets.

*) At least in principle. I practice, people with more money could get more computing power. But that doesn't require to be consisting of BTC. So Bill Gates could make a higher vote then all of us, even if he doesn't have a single bitcoin.

The analogy falls apart when it comes to the shares of computing power but in terms of product/assets it's intact.

Bitcoin is a community not a company, but marketing wise it would be a good idea to look at some ideas from the corporate world on how to handle different issues. The attacks on Bitcoin are getting anoying.

Bitcoin is a community not a company, but marketing wise it would be a good idea to look at some ideas from the corporate world on how to handle different issues. The attacks on Bitcoin are getting anoying.

Community, company... No real difference. Both types of organizations are about achieving a common goal or product. Also, don't use the word corporate. We aren't about limited liability here.

Every miner is a Bitcoin employee that claims their contributed value through their share of the Bitcoin currency.

Fortunately not true. Everybody has about the same vote independent* of BTC assets.

*) At least in principle. I practice, people with more money could get more computing power. But that doesn't require to be consisting of BTC. So Bill Gates could make a higher vote then all of us, even if he doesn't have a single bitcoin.

The analogy falls apart when it comes to the shares of computing power but in terms of product/assets it's intact.

But if assets don't mean anything, it is more like being customer than stock holder.

It is like two persons eating different amount of hamburgers at McDonald's. That doesn't make them share holders of the company.

But if assets don't mean anything, it is more like being customer than stock holder.

It is like two persons eating different amount of hamburgers at McDonald's. That doesn't make them share holders of the company.

indeed. as a general matter, one ought to have at least a minimal understanding of companies before drawing analogies to them.

as an aside, 'corporate' does not mean the same thing as 'limited liability' in the united states or any other legal system. you can have limited organizational liability without incorporation, and the term 'corporation' does not as a general matter mean that shareholders are exempt from liability. (there are many examples of 'corporations' without limited liability for shareholders.) it's also not clear what 'We aren't about limited liability here' might even mean in this context.

Well maybe we could make some kind of distributed network on a larger scale to handle the peripheral tasks associated with the preservation of the Bitcoin economy. Distributed programs like Namecoin for example could be utilized in order to prevent DNS seizure by inevitable government intervention. I think the key here is compartmentalization combined with distributed non-centralized systems. In this manner the original concept of distributed work could be applied to a higher level with an additional macro-scale exchange network which could be used to provide incentive for cooperative interaction on a higher scale. By using this same incentive system, we could then create interaction between pools, differing block-chains, as well as other upcoming compartments that will need to be created for the Bitcoin community to overcome the inevitable hurtles of its growth. I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of these types of open source distributed systems.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.